Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 18, 2014 8:30pm-9:01pm PST

8:30 pm
influx of higher professional workers particularly in the tech sector, but it's also due to the steady growth of workers in low-wage service sector jobs and the poor quality of those jobs. thousands of part-time workers just live paycheck to paycheck, but also hour to hour because of abusive on-call scheduling and a lack of job equity for part-time and on call worker. our communities have been grappling with these economic hag including the cost in housing costs, and [speaker not understood]. members of my own family work and have worked for large retail chains like the gap, starbucks, mace i. [speaker not understood] lack of hours and unpredictable schedule. i talked to a mother of three
8:31 pm
who worked at mcdonald's for ten years. we heard many stories in our committee hearings over and over again documenting the impacts on many worker in our city, many of them women and largely from immigrant and communities of color. but this one mother of three going to work every day was difficult for her due to the regular verbal abuse and demeaning treatment from her manager and constant pressure to work faster and faster and despite having 7 years of work experience, her manager began cutting her hours and hired someone with new part time hours. she was helping her husband support the family. at the lowest point only working 3 to 4 days a week and 4-hour shifts. frustrated she decided to walk away from her job after ten years. within this context of low-wage retail workers, i've been working with a coalition of community labor and small
8:32 pm
business groups and aligning ourselves with president chiu and his predictable scheduling task force and group heworking with and developed a retail workers bill of rights for fair and predictable schedule. [speaker not understood] at large corporate-owned businesses. i think the estimate is over 40,000 people would be impacted. the san francisco planning department completed a study of the formula retail sector and i thank them for all the hard work on that study and mr. ted eagan and others for their work in looking at the economics of it as well. so, this study identified 1,250 retail chain businesses in our city that are covered by the definition. so, beside wal-mart and target it also coffers fashion retailers from the gap for over
8:33 pm
21 and h & m specialty retailer like radioshack and 711, and trader joe's as well as all types of chain restaurants from starbucks to mcdonald's to olive garden. our coalition which ha been led by jobs for justice, united food and worker union, usww such as s.f. loma [speaker not understood] and a fair workweek. my portion of the retail worker bill of rights hours and retention protection for formula retail employees ha the following key provisions. it applies to formula retail establishment with 20 or more employees in the city. we have set the threshold at 20 or more employees within the city and county so a to avoid overburdening truly small
8:34 pm
kamman hie he. thank president chiu for identifying that and the sensitivity to smaller franchises. it also covers predatorial and contractors as well ~. it's important to note they have a retention requirement under police code 33 c and our ordinance referenceses the requirement and additional protections for workers who are providing services to reail employees to offer part time additional hours. any additional hours of work before hiring new employees or using subcontractors or a temp service, temporary services or staffing agency to do the work for the formula retail business. so, this protects the right of existing part-time workers to have the option of more hours if those hours are available. the employer must make this offer in writing. this would also apply to
8:35 pm
general service contractors or of a formula retail employ eras to work performed in san francisco at a retail establishment ~ covered by the ordinance under a contract with the formula retail employer. the requirement also applies to employers when the current workers are qualified to do the work as reasonably determined by the employer and the work is in the -- is the same or similar to the work the employees at the retail business. they are only required to work the number of hour, 35 hours a week. if a formula retail business change ownership -- this is the worker retention part of it. if a formula retail or chain business changes ownership, the new formula retail employer must retain for 90 days the employees who worked for the old formula retail employer for at least six months other than
8:36 pm
supervisory managerial employees. it prohibits retail employers or any other person to take action against anyone exercising their rights under the ordinance. the retail workers bill of rights i feel is an important complement to our raising of the $15 minimum wage in the city as it will be phased in, the strongest minimum wage [speaker not understood]. the measures are key piece he to closing the unacceptable economic divide in our city. it narrowly targets those businesses that are documented perpetraters of practiceses and that can afford to easily complement these regulations.
8:37 pm
[speaker not understood]. these are serve is he considered integral to the formula retail businesses and as such their worker are at the same level of protection. at this time i'd like to introduce two small amendments, our two ordinances raise the bar for large number of businesses negatively impacting the small sector. i urge your support for both. i think l amendments were made at the committee level and what we're now viewing is what's been amended after many hours and many committee meetings as well. so, i urge strong support for both these. and i think in many ways i wanted to pray for president chiu and the coalition for bringing together both piece he of the legislation. thank you. >> [speaker not understood]. >> mr. chair.
8:38 pm
>> colleague, i'm also looking forward to moving forward this retail worker bill of rights. our ordinance for predictable scheduling [speaker not understood]. certainly want to thank supervisor mar and his leadership with the coalition of worker advocates that he worked with. i also want to take a moment and thank the many worker advocates that have been working with me for the better part of a year, including next generation, the employment law center, usgw, seiu janitor, restaurant workers, other representatives from labor, our deputy city attorneys from cheska guessener, joshua white, as well as employees who have been at the table. i want to thank my aides for herding cats on this legislation. our ordinance if enacted would be the first in the country to deal with the issue of unpredictable schedules and unfair last-minute on-call practice that have significantly impacted hourly low-wage workers. over a year and a half ago, we
8:39 pm
proposed san francisco's family friendly workplace ordinance and last year thanks to the support of all of you, san francisco became the first city in the united states to establish the right of parents and caregivers to request flexible workplace arrangements. and i'm proud that this past summer, president obama issued an executive order providing the same right to two million federal workers. i want to thank the coalition of family advocates who worked with my office to get this done. as part of the initial draft of last year's family friendly legislation, we had included provision to address predictability, but the topic was so challenging that i decided to convene a table of labor, working family advocates and employer to address this topic and for the better part of this year we have convened this table. we learned how unpredictable schedules and last-minute on-call practices threatens economic security, creates work family challenges, particularly around child care and undermines worker health and well-being.
8:40 pm
we also heard about best practices from excellent local employers who figured out how to manage predictable schedules that helped the bottom lines of our companies. many of our largest chain stores and international corporations which in san francisco are known as formula retail establishments have the ability to provide more predictable schedules with sophisticated just in time scheduling technologies that can generate schedules based on customer flow projections. i think we all know, colleagues, while our economy has been doing well, for many we still have too many workers and too many families who are struggling in the midst of our city's affordability crisis, who struggle in low-wage jobs with unpredictable shifts and part-time limbo, and who have barriers to solid career ladders. we've heard from part-time workers who can't tell their families in any week how long they will work, how much they will earn, who struggle to juggle multiple jobs and work hours are unpredictable. and while san francisco has been a national leader for a
8:41 pm
living wage and i want to congratulate all of us and i want to thank the voters of san francisco for passing the highest minimum wage in the country just a few weeks ago, a higher minimum wage is not enough to lift families and individuals in our growing city out of poverty. these efforts need to be complemented with fair, predictable schedules. our ordinance did you four main thing. it requires formula retailers to post schedules 14 days in advance. [speaker not understood] requires employers to provide additional predictablity pay for last minute change, specifically one hour of predictability pay if changes are made in the last 7 days to the schedule, [speaker not understood], similar to what is required by the state. it discourages on call shifts
8:42 pm
for extra predictability pay [speaker not understood]. lastly, it provide part-time workers with equal access to promotions, hourly wages and time off. i want to just take a moment and pre-net on the fact that this has been a long process of working with labor, with worker advocates and with representatives of employers and business. i believe that our legislation reflects the balance we were able to achieve for the better part of a year. that being said, i do know there have been some questions about things and i look forward to having this discussion today at the board and i do hope that we will be able to move forward so that san francisco continue -- can continue to be a national leader when it comes to standing up for our workers. >> thank you, president chiu. supervisor wiener? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank both supervisor president chiu and supervisor mar for moving this conversation forward. this is a very important issue and i think it's a growing one in terms of ensuring that people have access not just to
8:43 pm
work, but to work that actually pays a living wage and a wage that people can actually survive and raise families and certainly the number of hours that people work is important part of that. you can have a good hourly wage. if you're not working many hours it's not going to really do you very much good. so, this is an important piece of legislation. i do think that -- want everyone's view of this legislation. this is legislation that deserves the fullest possible dialogue. i will say i've had some frustrations in the last few weeks, the last month. this has come forward to the -- to committee and to the full board, that it seems like we have ships passing in the night in terms of the business community and some of the supporters of legislation. i don't fully understand why this seems like a piece of legislation that as with the
8:44 pm
minimum wage, as with the health care security ordinance should be able to be resolved in a way that can get the broadest possible support. i don't pretend to know exactly why that hasn't happened, but for whatever reason it hasn't. there is a lot that i support in this legislation and this is legislation that i can support. i would like to see an additional week to try to give both side an opportunity to try to work towards a resolution and so i'd like to make a motion to continue this one week. i also, regardless of whether the motion to continue passes or fails, i do have one amendment that i would like to offer, and that is specifically because this legislation is keyed to formula retail and san francisco formula retail is defined as having 11 or more establishments, we just expanded that when the mayor signs it or 30 days thereafter, it will be 11 establishments
8:45 pm
worldwide. that sweeps in a number of businesses he that are really small businesses, san francisco native businesses that have done well and that have hit the 11 mark. so, there are a number of -- i can think of examples of these businesses where they have achieved technically formula retail status but they are not the types of large companies that i think proponents of this legislation have in mind. so, the amendment, i'll offer, i was told i can do this a an oral amendment, for both pieces of legislation, to have it begin at 20 stores -- 20 location worldwide instead of the typical 11 for formula retail. though are the two motion i'd like to continue and the one as i stated. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. first we have a motion on the
8:46 pm
floor to continue both item to our board meeting next tuesday, november 25th. do i have a second? take the amendments? okay. why don't we take the amendments first. first we have a motion to amend both items supervisor wiener's comments. second by supervisor tang. discussion on that motion? supervisor mar. >> if we're starting to talk about the motion, the motion to continue, i would urge my colleagues not to support. i know that often more time allows better dialogue, but parts of this legislation was introduced in july. there have been plenty of discussions from meetings with everyone across the table. i know president chiu has been working closely with many different parties a has my office and i know that there's been good discussion with two different budget meetings where we've gone through quite a bit of legislation as well. so, i'd strongly urge my colleagues not to continue this for one more week.
8:47 pm
i know that there's a number of amendments or another amendment that may be made right now, but my hope is we vote this up or down today and for second reading next week, given the departure of our president in the short few days in office in san francisco as he moves on to sacramento as well. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. i do have a question for supervisor dado in terms of his piece of this package here. i know that on page 12 starting online 8 where it talks about if there are any potential conflicts with the family, friendly workplace ordinance which you had authored, you know, on the one hand we obviously want to allow for predictability for work schedule for our worksers, on the other hand allow them the flexibility if there are any sort of family issue that come up. ~ so, at the moment the legislation states that this particular ordinance trumps the family funding workplace ordinance. and, so, i wanted to see if we
8:48 pm
can make an amendment to make it such that the family friendly workplace ordinance, if there are any conflicts that is. >> president chiu? >> so, this is a topic that the order advocates that we have been working with have discussed quite a bit. i think what we're all trying to achieve is particularly help hourly and low-wage workers. both have some flexibility when it comes to their hours, thats was legislation we moved last year. also, if they're told in a particular week they're going to have certain hours, they knows those are the hours they're going to work and that's not canceled. it what pointed out there could be an inherent tension when it comes to that. and, so, we ought to resolve that tension in one direction. that being said, supervisor mar and i just caucused and we're okay with the suggestion that we flip it in the direction that you're talking about, so, if that's something you want to do. >> thank you very much. i make that motion to make that
8:49 pm
amendment to page 12, i gets it would be line 11 to say the [speaker not understood] of code z shall prevail. >> supervisor tang has made a motion. second by president chiu. any discussion on that motion? why don't we move on, supervisor wiener. okay, supervisor breed. >> thank you. i actually have two amendments to the legislation that i'd like to propose, both to meet the requirements of contractors such as security guards and janitors comply with this ordinance. i know this is a major concern of the small business commission, particularly because these contracting companies have not been heavily engaged in this legislative process. it will also be very difficult for the contractors to know when they are and when they are not contracting with a formula retailer as opposed to a regular retailer. this legislation rightly places responsibilities on formula retailers, but transferring
8:50 pm
those responsibilities by default to their contractors seems unfair and imposes conditions upon them based upon circumstances far beyond their control. this is a very personal issue for me because these janitorial and security contractors are often some of the only companies that hire from my community and they hire those who have little professional experience or other employment barriers. i don't want to say anything to get in the way of provide any further barriers to that, so, my motion is to delete section 33 00 f.3e from ordinance 14 08 80, and section 33 00 g.4g from ordinance 1410 24. these are on pages 6 lines 4 through 13 and on page 9 lines 13 and 23 is the second piece of legislation ~. so, that's one of the requested
8:51 pm
amendments i have the second that i have is to -- i think this is definitely groundbreaking legislation. i'm actually excited for what's to come to support many of these employees who continue to deal with issues with their employer around scheduling and anything this addresses he. this is also a new legislation process involved and my concern about allowing non-city attorney to litigate on this matter when it's not completely -- have been vetted in that sense concerns me. and i think one of the other recommendation for the small business commission has been to remove the private right action and to allow the city to a dr.
8:52 pm
address thea issue. i do support removing the private right of [speaker not understood] as well. colleagues, i hope you'll support my suggestions for these two amendments. >> supervisor breed has made two amendments. let's take the first one regarding contractor service. second to that amendment? second by supervisor tang. discussion on that item? >> mr. chair, if i may -- city attorney john give more. just to clarify supervisor breed's amendment, you mentioned a few specific sectionses where the janitorial and security service contractors are covered. there are one or two other sections in theerr ~ in item number 42 where general contractors and employees are mentioned. i understand your amendment is to remove coverage from those employees altogether for both ordinance.
8:53 pm
>> yes, for contractors specifically. >> got it. >> we have supervisor breed's first amendment on the floor. let's get the second one on the floor, if we can, supervisor breed. right of action, do we have a second to that? second by supervisor tang. okay. further discussion on these amendments? supervisor mar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me just say that i'm adamantly opposed to eliminating janitorial and security workers from our broad retail workers bill of rights. they do extremely hard work, -- again, it's only for janitorial service contractors when they're covered to provide services to formula retail business he. it's not the broad range of them, but it's when they're providing services to a mall and formula retail business he. also when the service is considered integral fought retail business. so, they are part of the retail
8:54 pm
businesses he in my view and those in my opinion, this is a foundation [speaker not understood]. it would severely weaken the retail workers bill of rights. i urge opposition to that amendment. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you. i also am opposed to that first amendment regarding janitorial and security workers. i used to work at a union and organizing with janitors and security officers as well and we would actually go to sites that were nonunion in buildings that were form ha retail buildings or office buildings. ~ formula retail buildings we found the worker there had schedules that were completely unorganized. they didn't know what was going to happen one day to the next ~. often people were not the
8:55 pm
getting paid the minimum wage but for the area they covered. they would work a certain area, several thousand square feet, and it wouldn't amount to minimum wage. this legislation does a lot to help provide a real high standard that they can actually make a living on. and i think that we will be seriously watering down this legislation which will affect immigrant workers who are predominantly working in the janitorial sector and a lot of latino and african-american workers who are in the short sector. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor breed? >> i think i want to stress my point. my concern is that many of these industry, a said higher to
8:56 pm
[speaker not understood], my concern is the unintended consequence he of the legislation and what it might do in this particular situation. so, i think my push is not necessarily to exclude them permanently, but exclude them at this time before we move this legislation forward so that we can have an opportunity to include them in the conversation. they haven't been involved in the process. they expressed concerns understanding of what they might do a it relates to formula retailers and nonformula retailers. it doesn't mean that i'm suggesting that we permanently eliminate them from the discussion. i think it's there to say, wait, they've clearly not been involve in the pro . it's only fair before we move forward with this at least allow them to provide
8:57 pm
legislation a they work for their companies so they have a better understanding of it. i would be fine with a continuance to allow for the opportunity for that to happen, which means that between now and if this legislation is continued to the following week, that would probably be sufficient time to have that discussion in order to make a determination as to whether or not -- can remained or not. i'm happy to withdraw my motion, but if we don't, then i want to keep it active. thank you. >> president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair and colleagues. thank you for your thoughtfulness on the various amendments to the legislation. let me just address my perspectives on what has been proposed. first of all, with regard to the motion to continue, this legislation has been, as i think many of you know, a long work in progress. the conversation really started
8:58 pm
last year during the family friendly workplace ordinance discussion. we decided to take out the predictability provisions to what we would refer this year. my office convened a six-month process between business, labor, and families to work on these issues. legislation was introduced late summer and early fall. we've had a couple of months of discussion. when we had our first meeting in budget we were told that there was still additional questions and we [speaker not understood]. yesterday in order to address these issues, i very much hope we can move this forward and i do hope to be able to vote on this legislation before i leave. that being said, i know there have been four amendments that have been proposed, one by supervisor wiener, one by supervisor tang, two by supervisor breed, and unprepared to support three out of the four. let me just mention the one
8:59 pm
that i'm not prepared to support is the amendment having to do with janitors and security guards. as supervisors mar and avalos have articulated, those are employees and [speaker not understood] clearly from them that really have suffered from the challenges around predictability. and i think by including the exemption that we included for businesses that have less than 20 employees, we're not impacting i think the smallest mom and pop businesses supervisor breed is concerned about and there have been issues the last week-and-a-half about whether we were including the smallest businesses or not. the legislation as it stand currently exempts businesses under 20. so, again hopefully those businesses will not be impacted. but i do think it is important for us to recognize that some of our hardest working and lowest wage workers in our city are janitors and our security guards, deserve some predictable. i am more than happy to, if there are any additional
9:00 pm
conversations to be had, to think harder about this. that is where i am. with regard to supervisor tang's amendment, we already addressed -- supervisor mar and i agreed we are prepared to support prioritizing flexibility and the family friendly workplace ordinance in this ordinance. with regard to supervisor wiener's suggestion that we increase the threshold to 20 of the number of businesses in town, that is not something i would have been prepared to support in the land use context in the front of the retail legislation that we voted on earlier today that supervisor mar had authored. but i think when it comes to pre-difficultthctionv ability. certainly the san francisco soup kitchen, these are small home grown business he in san francisco. and the idea that we should treat them as we treat


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on